Skip to main content

The role of systematic reviews in evidence-based research

Series Editors: Professor Dawid Pieper (Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane) and Professor Hans Lund (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences)

Systematic Reviews invites you to submit to our new thematic series ‘The role of systematic reviews in evidence-based research’.

Over the last two to three decades, meta-research has shown a high number of redundant and unnecessary studies being published. A possible reason could be that researchers haven’t systematically and transparently identified and used earlier similar studies to inform the justification and design of new studies, or to place new results in the context of existing evidence. The best way to avoid redundant research would be to identify or prepare a systematic review of earlier similar studies and use this systematic review to justify and inform the design of a new study, and to place new results in context. This process is called evidence-based research (EBR).

However, a systematic collection and analysis of existing meta-research related to the problem of redundant research, clearly indicates a need for further research characterizing the problem, calculating the prevalence and consequences of redundancy within different medical specialties, developing a useful and practical way to avoid redundancy and to implement the EBR approach in clinical research practice.

In this series, the Editors invite authors to submit articles that use systematic reviews in one form or another and/or have systematic reviews as a topic in relation to the concept of evidence-based research. Appropriate articles could use evidence syntheses as a method, evaluate the use of systematic reviews for justifying and designing new studies and when placing new results in the context of existing evidence, and describe or examine challenges related to the preparation of systematic reviews that will specifically affect researchers when implementing the EBR approach. Submissions can include research articles, systematic reviews, methodology and commentaries; we are not including protocols in this series.

Manuscripts should be formatted according to our submission guidelines and submitted via the online submission system. In the submission system please make sure the correct collection title is chosen on the additional information tab. Please also indicate clearly in the covering letter that the manuscript is to be considered for the ‘The role of systematic reviews in evidence-based research’ series.

For further information, please use the contact us via the email on the journal website.

  1. Growing numbers of randomized clinical trials-based systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) have been conducted to examine the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating gastroesophageal reflux disease (G...

    Authors: Jinke Huang, Jiali Liu, Fengyun Wang and Xudong Tang
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2024 13:183
  2. Requiring authors to base their research on a systematic review of the existing literature prevents the generation of redundant scientific studies, thereby avoiding the deprivation of effective therapies for t...

    Authors: Diane Rosen, Nils L. Reiter, Barbara Vogel and Robert Prill
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2024 13:28
  3. As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for...

    Authors: Kim van der Braak, Pauline Heus, Claudia Orelio, Fredh Netterström-Wedin, Karen A. Robinson, Hans Lund and Lotty Hooft
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2023 12:234
  4. Systematic literature screening is a key component in systematic reviews. However, this approach is resource intensive as generally two persons independently of each other (double screening) screen a vast numb...

    Authors: Siw Waffenschmidt, Wiebke Sieben, Thomas Jakubeit, Marco Knelangen, Inga Overesch, Stefanie Bühn, Dawid Pieper, Nicole Skoetz and Elke Hausner
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2023 12:161
  5. When reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards — IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not...

    Authors: Simon E. Kolstoe, Jennifer Durning, Jennifer Yost and Silviya Aleksandrova-Yankulovska
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2023 12:154
  6. Appropriate dissemination of public health evidence is of high importance to ensure that scientific knowledge reaches potential stakeholders and relevant population groups. A wide distrust towards science and ...

    Authors: Stefanie Maria Helmer, Katja Matthias, Lea Mergenthal, Mia Reimer and Karina Karolina De Santis
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2023 12:113
  7. Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continu...

    Authors: Mersiha Mahmić-Kaknjo, Vicko Tomić, Moriah E. Ellen, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Raluca Sfetcu, Eduard Baladia, Nicoletta Riva, Angelos P. Kassianos and Ana Marušić
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2023 12:56
  8. Health-care decision making should consider the best available evidence, often in the form of systematic reviews (SRs). The number of existing SRs and their overlap make their identification and use difficult....

    Authors: Charlotte Mareike Kugler, Matthias Perleth, Tim Mathes, Kaethe Goossen and Dawid Pieper
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2023 12:36
  9. A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that wil...

    Authors: Hans Lund, Lars Tang, Ingrid Poulsen, Karen la Cour, Merete Bjerrum, Claus Vinther Nielsen and Thomas Maribo
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2022 11:277
  10. Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large ...

    Authors: Hans Lund, Karen A. Robinson, Ane Gjerland, Hanna Nykvist, Thea Marie Drachen, Robin Christensen, Carsten Bogh Juhl, Gro Jamtvedt, Monica Nortvedt, Merete Bjerrum, Matt Westmore, Jennifer Yost and Klara Brunnhuber
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2022 11:241
  11. With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess ...

    Authors: Kim van der Braak, Mona Ghannad, Claudia Orelio, Pauline Heus, Johanna A. A. Damen, René Spijker, Karen Robinson, Hans Lund and Lotty Hooft
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2022 11:191
  12. Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthe...

    Authors: Eva Draborg, Jane Andreasen, Birgitte Nørgaard, Carsten Bogh Juhl, Jennifer Yost, Klara Brunnhuber, Karen A. Robinson and Hans Lund
    Citation: Systematic Reviews 2022 11:189